BoxRec

HomicideHenry wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:
If one says anything, to anyone, at any given time (which is their right to do so) they must then accept the concept that they, too, in return will be receiving the same treatment: "Do unto others as you would like done to yourself", comes to mind.

So you genuinely think it would be ok if I was at work with a black guy and repeatedly called him a n^gger? You are seriously saying that is ok?

On moral and ethical grounds, no it would not be okay. HOWEVER, as a human being, you do have the right to say whatever it is you like to whoever you like, whenever you like--- but you must also take responsibility for whatever you say (or do) and if you excercise the right to say whatever you wish to whoever you wish in whatever tone you wish: then you must expect the same in return. Period. So if you call someone the N-word or any other sort of word, be prepared to face the same blunt judgement.

So does Tyson have to take responsibility for what he said? For tweets he has sent?

If I called a 6ft 6in bloke a poof and he didn't like so whacked me then I deserved it. So why does Tyson get a free ride comparing peados to those who have abortions?

If Tyson is so embracing of everyone, why did he go on a rant about Zionists and the Jews? Do you think he may offend Jewish people thus in your words take responsibility for his actions.

I don't give a shit if he left school at 10 and can't read or write, he is a grown man with children. He should know the difference between right and wrong. Especially as a so called christian.

I would rather be proud of a gay man who done a lot for people less fortunate than him than the christian that condemns him because of who he falls in love with.

Tyson is a famous person and as such should shut up when putting out his personal views if they are going to offend people.

If he uses the gay card like bellew using chinny about opponents he is inferring that gay people are inferior to him and can't be good boxers.

I'd like him to say it Gareth Thomas the openly gay welsh rugby player.

nitro5912 wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:
So you genuinely think it would be ok if I was at work with a black guy and repeatedly called him a n^gger? You are seriously saying that is ok?

On moral and ethical grounds, no it would not be okay. HOWEVER, as a human being, you do have the right to say whatever it is you like to whoever you like, whenever you like--- but you must also take responsibility for whatever you say (or do) and if you excercise the right to say whatever you wish to whoever you wish in whatever tone you wish: then you must expect the same in return. Period. So if you call someone the N-word or any other sort of word, be prepared to face the same blunt judgement.

So does Tyson have to take responsibility for what he said? For tweets he has sent?

If I called a 6ft 6in bloke a poof and he didn't like so whacked me then I deserved it. So why does Tyson get a free ride comparing peados to those who have abortions?

If Tyson is so embracing of everyone, why did he go on a rant about Zionists and the Jews? Do you think he may offend Jewish people thus in your words take responsibility for his actions.

I don't give a poo if he left school at 10 and can't read or write, he is a grown man with children. He should know the difference between right and wrong. Especially as a so called christian.

I would rather be proud of a gay man who done a lot for people less fortunate than him than the christian that condemns him because of who he falls in love with.

Tyson is a famous person and as such should shut up when putting out his personal views if they are going to offend people.

If he uses the gay card like bellew using chinny about opponents he is inferring that gay people are inferior to him and can't be good boxers.

I'd like him to say it Gareth Thomas the openly gay welsh rugby player.

Why what could Gareth Thomas do about it?

Finn wrote:

nitro5912 wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:
On moral and ethical grounds, no it would not be okay. HOWEVER, as a human being, you do have the right to say whatever it is you like to whoever you like, whenever you like--- but you must also take responsibility for whatever you say (or do) and if you excercise the right to say whatever you wish to whoever you wish in whatever tone you wish: then you must expect the same in return. Period. So if you call someone the N-word or any other sort of word, be prepared to face the same blunt judgement.

So does Tyson have to take responsibility for what he said? For tweets he has sent?

If I called a 6ft 6in bloke a poof and he didn't like so whacked me then I deserved it. So why does Tyson get a free ride comparing peados to those who have abortions?

If Tyson is so embracing of everyone, why did he go on a rant about Zionists and the Jews? Do you think he may offend Jewish people thus in your words take responsibility for his actions.

I don't give a poo if he left school at 10 and can't read or write, he is a grown man with children. He should know the difference between right and wrong. Especially as a so called christian.

I would rather be proud of a gay man who done a lot for people less fortunate than him than the christian that condemns him because of who he falls in love with.

Tyson is a famous person and as such should shut up when putting out his personal views if they are going to offend people.

If he uses the gay card like bellew using chinny about opponents he is inferring that gay people are inferior to him and can't be good boxers.

I'd like him to say it Gareth Thomas the openly gay welsh rugby player.

Why what could Gareth Thomas do about it?

Rugby tackle him

Gareth Thomas? Yes, that would be marvellous, one punch on him... What's happened to this forum?

Shall I start the "Tyson Fury vs Gareth Thomas(who wins?)" thread on here,Current Scene or Boxing History?

All 3?

handsofstone wrote:Shall I start the "Tyson Fury vs Gareth Thomas(who wins?)" thread on here,Current Scene or Boxing History?

All 3?

There'll be a lot of "Who the f*ck is Gareth Thomas" if you do

gilgamesh wrote:

handsofstone wrote:Shall I start the "Tyson Fury vs Gareth Thomas(who wins?)" thread on here,Current Scene or Boxing History?

All 3?

There'll be a lot of "Who the f*ck is Gareth Thomas" if you do

Yes Gil but rest assured they will ALL know who he is after a few days

The things Tyson Fury said were beyond idiotic, but he certainly hasn't gotten a free pass for those things, certainly not in the media. I'm not really sure what anyone else thinks could be done about it?

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:The things Tyson Fury said were beyond idiotic, but he certainly hasn't gotten a free pass for those things, certainly not in the media. I'm not really sure what anyone else thinks could be done about it?

The media, along with his psychotic father gave him far from a free pass. He was hounded. Watch the reaction if AJ beats Wlad and have a look back and tell me I'm wrong. He's done himself no favours, but f uck me, don't blame him for feeling hard done by.

mickey1975 wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:The things Tyson Fury said were beyond idiotic, but he certainly hasn't gotten a free pass for those things, certainly not in the media. I'm not really sure what anyone else thinks could be done about it?

The media, along with his psychotic father gave him far from a free pass. He was hounded. Watch the reaction if AJ beats Wlad and have a look back and tell me I'm wrong. He's done himself no favours, but f uck me, don't blame him for feeling hard done by.

What did his dad do?

I do blame him for feeling hard done by, he didn't need to say those things. Had he just talked about boxing and talked up the Klitschko fight in that interview with the Mail he wouldn't have been hounded the way he was. It was his own doing, and it's sad as he hasn't received the credit he deserved for pulling off arguably the best win by a British boxer in the history of the sport.

What was the timeline between the klit win and fury making his outrageous statements?

From memory I thought the media reaction to the klit win was very lukewarm and under played. And didnt they have the peter fury story on either that weekend or the one after?

I think fury would have a solid case for underappreciation and somewhat persecution had he never made his statements. He played into what they wanted and gave the media chance to dismiss him as a mad bigot.

Counter-puncher wrote:What was the timeline between the klit win and fury making his outrageous statements?

From memory I thought the media reaction to the klit win was very lukewarm and under played. And didnt they have the peter fury story on either that weekend or the one after?

I think fury would have a solid case for underappreciation and somewhat persecution had he never made his statements. He played into what they wanted and gave the media chance to dismiss him as a mad bigot.

I think he said it all in the run up to the fight, but my memory could be off.

He made comments about homosexuality and pedophilia a few weeks before the Wlad fight

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:What was the timeline between the klit win and fury making his outrageous statements?

From memory I thought the media reaction to the klit win was very lukewarm and under played. And didnt they have the peter fury story on either that weekend or the one after?

I think fury would have a solid case for underappreciation and somewhat persecution had he never made his statements. He played into what they wanted and gave the media chance to dismiss him as a mad bigot.

I think he said it all in the run up to the fight, but my memory could be off.

Ah right, ta.

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:...and it's sad as he hasn't received the credit he deserved for pulling off arguably the best win by a British boxer in the history of the sport.

Not sure about this to be fair. As much as Fury is openly disliked by many because of the sexist/homophobic/gypsy links, a big part of the negative reaction to that fight was because of how bad a fight it was.

The general public love a knock down, drag out scrap - not two massive guys barely throwing a punch in anger. People can wax lyrical about Fury's masterplan, and nobody can deny it worked, but to 99% of those watching that fight was a shocker which they had no interest in watching again.

dirk2686 wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:...and it's sad as he hasn't received the credit he deserved for pulling off arguably the best win by a British boxer in the history of the sport.

Not sure about this to be fair. As much as Fury is openly disliked by many because of the sexist/homophobic/gypsy links, a big part of the negative reaction to that fight was because of how bad a fight it was.

The general public love a knock down, drag out scrap - not two massive guys barely throwing a punch in anger. People can wax lyrical about Fury's masterplan, and nobody can deny it worked, but to 99% of those watching that fight was a shocker which they had no interest in watching again.

But had he won without the negative media attention just before the fight the media reaction would have been hugely different. I think you might be underestimating the effect that had on the win.

I agree DD

Counter-puncher wrote:I agree DD

and I disagree , the fight was what it was and If he had gone and ripped the title away in style most people would have given him respect for the win , but it was a shocker and one of the worst heavyweight world title fights in living memory . He fiddled his way to the win against somebody that didn't come to fight either .

Finn wrote:

nitro5912 wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:
On moral and ethical grounds, no it would not be okay. HOWEVER, as a human being, you do have the right to say whatever it is you like to whoever you like, whenever you like--- but you must also take responsibility for whatever you say (or do) and if you excercise the right to say whatever you wish to whoever you wish in whatever tone you wish: then you must expect the same in return. Period. So if you call someone the N-word or any other sort of word, be prepared to face the same blunt judgement.

So does Tyson have to take responsibility for what he said? For tweets he has sent?

If I called a 6ft 6in bloke a poof and he didn't like so whacked me then I deserved it. So why does Tyson get a free ride comparing peados to those who have abortions?

If Tyson is so embracing of everyone, why did he go on a rant about Zionists and the Jews? Do you think he may offend Jewish people thus in your words take responsibility for his actions.

I don't give a poo if he left school at 10 and can't read or write, he is a grown man with children. He should know the difference between right and wrong. Especially as a so called christian.

I would rather be proud of a gay man who done a lot for people less fortunate than him than the christian that condemns him because of who he falls in love with.

Tyson is a famous person and as such should shut up when putting out his personal views if they are going to offend people.

If he uses the gay card like bellew using chinny about opponents he is inferring that gay people are inferior to him and can't be good boxers.

I'd like him to say it Gareth Thomas the openly gay welsh rugby player.

Why what could Gareth Thomas do about it?

He might have a sudden change of heart seeing a bloke who has spent his whole life taking a battering of blokes and dishing it back.

pudenda like fury are why blokes in sport are ashamed to be who they are.

rd350lc wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:I agree DD

and I disagree , the fight was what it was and If he had gone and ripped the title away in style most people would have given him respect for the win , but it was a shocker and one of the worst heavyweight world title fights in living memory . He fiddled his way to the win against somebody that didn't come to fight either .

I'm not talking about fight fans, I'm talking about the wider general public. Their impression of Tyson is mostly made up from that interview and the subsequent controversy. How you can deny the result would have been better received in the press had he not said all that stuff is quite astonishing, and simply wrong.

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:But had he won without the negative media attention just before the fight the media reaction would have been hugely different. I think you might be underestimating the effect that had on the win.

Firstly I massively disagree with the notion of it being the best win by a British boxer in the history of the sport. Yes Fury was an outsider, but Wlad hadn't looked great against Jennings and was awful on the night. I'm clearly not alone in thinking it was a boring, generally action-free night which did very little to warrant clamour for a rematch.

That aside, negative attention had built up with regards to Fury for a long term. He was always using gay this, gay that as insults.

October 2012 - Fury apologises for 'all gays should be shot dead' tweet and calls Price and Bellew 'gay lovers' https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/ ... avid-price

October 2013 - More Twitter ranting, this time about Wlad and Lennox Lewis and once more going on about homosexuals http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/09/tyson-fur ... o-4141152/

So this wasn't a case of Fury dropping the ball in the days leading up to the fight. Everyone had an idea that he was a bit of an idiot, and of course, post-fight, he went on to prove it even more. Basically, if you don't want negative media attention, don't behave like an absolute whopper! And what does he do when this is pointed out?

Barry McGuigan on Fury ranting about paedophiles, Jewish conspiracies and women being only good for one (or two) things:

Kids have parents bringing them into line. No one says no to Fury. This is brazen attention-seeking, self-evidently offensive, insulting, abusive and wrong. If one of my fighters behaved like Fury he would be out the door

Fury's response:

u are a traitor to your home country, gave up your Irish title to fight for the British, & u backdoor people in biznuess

What exactly is he hoping to achieve with this?!

I didn't say it was the best British win, I said it arguably was, and you could argue it was. Few British fighters have beaten a fighter the calibre of Klitschko, especially as a long reigning champion in his hometown.

I should say backyard not hometown, obviously.

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:I'm not talking about fight fans, I'm talking about the wider general public. Their impression of Tyson is mostly made up from that interview and the subsequent controversy. How you can deny the result would have been better received in the press had he not said all that stuff is quite astonishing, and simply wrong.

Which interview? I think the general public's view of Fury are based on a series of widely reported tweets and soundbites going back five years now in which he repeatedly demonstrates his views towards gay people, women, Jews, women who have abortions and so on.

Combine this with the biggest fight of his life being an absolute stinker and why would anyone be remotely surprised by the general public not falling head over heels about the guy? People loved the likes of Hatton, Calzaghe, Froch and Bruno because they wanted them to win. Who cares about Fury?

dirk2686 wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:I'm not talking about fight fans, I'm talking about the wider general public. Their impression of Tyson is mostly made up from that interview and the subsequent controversy. How you can deny the result would have been better received in the press had he not said all that stuff is quite astonishing, and simply wrong.

Which interview? I think the general public's view of Fury are based on a series of widely reported tweets and soundbites going back five years now in which he repeatedly demonstrates his views towards gay people, women, Jews, women who have abortions and so on.

Combine this with the biggest fight of his life being an absolute stinker and why would anyone be remotely surprised by the general public not falling head over heels about the guy? People loved the likes of Hatton, Calzaghe, Froch and Bruno because they wanted them to win. Who cares about Fury?

The interview in the mail where he made the comments he did regarding homosexuality and paedohpilia, the stuff he said before had barely been reported at all, and would likely have remained that way hadn't he said the stuff to the Mail.